TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Accused granted bail in GST evasion case citing Section 6(2)(b) violation for multiple investigations</h1> <h3>Shipra Chawla and Rajiv Chawla Versus DGGI</h3> The Patiala House Courts-DSC granted bail to accused persons charged with GST evasion through fake ITC claims without actual goods supply. The court found ... Seeking grant of bail - evasion of GST - passing on fake ITCs, without actual supply of goods - HELD THAT:- It is matter of record as is reflected from the documents annexed with bail applications of accused/ applicants that the firm M/s Hindustan Papers Machinery Industries firstly received summons from Sr. Intelligence Officers of Gurgaon Zonal Unit of DGGI as is reflected from summons dated 02.11.2021 and summons dated 19.10.2022 in respect of alleged availing of ITC as one enquiry/investigation was initiated. Similarly same firm i.e. M/s Hindustan Papers Machinery Industries has again received summons from UP State GST on 03.06.2022, 13.06.2022, 04.07.2022, 27.07.2022 (copy of which are lying along with the application). It is thereafter DGGI DZU has also initiated the action with the same allegations of alleged evasion of tax by availing ITC on the basis of fake invoices. It is evident from bare language of the Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act that once any action regarding subject matter of any offence committed under Section 132 of the CGST Act has been initiated, then in respect of same subject matter no other authority/proper officer under the Act would initiate the proceedings. Apparently such provision has been made to avoid multiplicity of enquiry/ investigation from different authorities because under the CGST Act there are authorities at State level as well as Central level. Legislature in its intentions had ultimate object to trace the evasion of tax and to collect the GST at State as well as Central level. From the scheme of CGST Act and the guidelines dated 17.08.2022 from GST Investigation Wing, Ministry of Finance, it is very much evident that the ultimate object of the Act of 2017 is to ensure assessment, levying of GST in accordance with Act and to ensure a deterrent procedure to avoid evasion of tax. Also, the personal liberty of accused persons cannot be deprived only on the ground that some other persons, who may be required for the investigation of the matter, are not traceable to the Department. The accused are ordered to be admitted to bail upon furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the equal amount each to the satisfaction of ld. MM/ Duty MM/ACMM/CMM/court concerned, subject to conditions imposed. Bail application allowed. Issues:Bail applications under section 439 Cr.PC for accused Rajiv Chawla and Shipra Chawla regarding alleged GST evasion and misuse of ITC leading to arrest by DGGI DZU.Analysis:1. The case involved two bail applications for accused Rajiv Chawla and Shipra Chawla, partners in M/s Hindustan Papers Machinery Industries, arrested by DGGI DZU for alleged GST evasion. The investigation revealed a scheme involving fake invoices and ITC misuse, with M/s Shankar Trading Company as a key player. 2. The accused claimed illegal detention and lack of prior notice, arguing cooperation in the investigation. They highlighted pending proceedings with State GST UP and DGGI Gurgaon, indicating ongoing compliance and tax deposits. The defense cited violations of arrest guidelines and relevant judgments for bail relief. 3. The prosecution opposed bail, citing absconding co-accused and ongoing investigation. They argued that the DGGI DZU's action was distinct from State GST units, invoking Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act to support their position. 4. The court analyzed the legal provisions and previous judgments, emphasizing the prohibition on multiple proceedings for the same offense under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. It noted the legislative intent to prevent duplicity in tax evasion investigations across different authorities. 5. Referring to the Allahabad High Court judgment and legal interpretations, the court emphasized the need for a unified approach in assessing tax offenses and avoiding jurisdictional conflicts. It considered the accused's compliance efforts and jurisdictional aspects in determining the misuse of legal provisions. 6. Ultimately, the court granted bail to the accused, considering their judicial custody since the arrest date. Bail was set at Rs.20,000 with specific conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with evidence or witnesses, ensuring the accused's release while safeguarding the legal process.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the intricate legal arguments, statutory provisions, and judicial considerations involved in the bail applications concerning alleged GST evasion and misuse of ITC, providing a detailed overview of the case's complexities and the court's decision-making process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
